Re: Christianity leads me to Athesim?

In article <2i8vu192jdvsfe44ggrjhtdfap23courmo@xxxxxxx>
William <tielige@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:43:25 GMT, Andrew McMullon
<andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That's true in the real world too. My wife loves me - but that's not
something which can be proved. Her behaviour is certainly consistent
with the statement but maybe its wishful thinking on my part or she
believes I'm really a multimillionaire and will leave it all to her in
gratitude for her feigned affection...

In the context of what the above was said then I think you are right
and it probably highlights my point. There are things that have to be
taken on trust from others (although love has many signals that can
hardly be faked) and there are things that can be verified or
falsified. The Bible contains things that cannot be tested (eg, claims
about the hereafter and the supernatural) and things that can be
tested. If what it says that can bet tested in the here and now turns
out to be incorrect then why should we believe what it says about the
things that cannot be tested?

Exactly. So if it proves reliable on things that can be tested then
you have less reason to distrust it on the other matters.

In truth some things have to be believed in faith. They are
consistent with what we know of reality but are not able to be
definitively proven. We take them on trust and they enhance our lives
- we prove their value by living them.

Belief can have benefits in itself but that doesn't mean that what is
believed is actually true.

Fair enough - but this is the realm of faith. I believe that faith
matters should be reaonable even if they can't be proven in a
definitive sense.

It is true that many
Christians have read them that way and that quite a number still do.
But once we recognise that Genesis is not - and has never really
purported to be - a scientific treatise;

It doesn't have to be a scientific treatise but, if it is to reflect
reality, it has to be consistent with reality.

In what way isn't it consistent with reality? It tells us that the
world is good but flawed - that's certainly consistent with reality as
I know it.

How is the earth existing before the sun, moon and stars consistent
with reality?

It isn't - but then is that what the Bible actually teaches or is it a
middle eastern myth being used to teach something else?

That's how myth works.

Yes, but do you accept myths as a source of new knowledge (other than
possibly knowledge about the myth-maker)?

Again it depends on how you define knowledge. If you mean facts that
are falsifiable then no. Myth provides a framework of meaning which
is an interpretation over and above the basic factual stuff.

and that even those parts of
the Bible which include narrative are not primarily written as works of
history. then the problem disappears (or is, at least severely
reduced).

That all may be the case but the questioner asked the reasonable
question of how you pick out the bits to believe and the bits not to
believe.

You don't - you believe it all. However, there are different kinds of
truth.

Please explain.

Here:

There is historical truth in the Bible, there is scientific
truth too - they are easy to test. Other truths are more
philosophical or theological. They are still truth but can't be
tested in the easy way historical or scientific truths can be tested.

Please give an example of a truth that cannot be tested in the way
that historical or scientific (ie, objective) truths can be tested.
And what do you mean by 'truths)?

Historical and scientific truth can only be tested within the
historical or scientific framework. I'm sure that you are aware of
the philosophical difficulties of defining anything as truth in a
fundamentally incontrovertible way. So, to a degree, all truths are
subjective because they are all encoutered by subjects like you and I.
Since you can't remove that subjective layer you have to trust that
they are real even though you can't finally prove it.

Religious truths (ie things that work, or make sense) to religious
believers are perhaps more subjective - but then I don't really see
any fundamental problem with that.

They can be tested though - just like the statement about my wife's
love above.

Well you may have a different kind of marriage to mine. My wife shows
her love for me in myriads of objectively testable ways - and I'm sure
she detects my love for her in similar ways. The evidence is clear to
others also so it is both objective and independent. I don't need a
leap of faith to know that she loves me.

I really don't think that is true. You are aware of evidence
consistent with her love - but that's really only circumstantial.
Could you come up with a definitive test?

The Bible tells me that God loves me. My experience of
life and faith shows me that this is true - but it is not something I
can easily prove to you. You'll have to make your own 'faith
experiments' to do that.

No-one expects proof for such things.

Well indeed - but most of us expect that it still hangs together for
us. That's not the same thing as proof - but it does show that it is
not unreasonable to so believe, at least with the evidence we have.

But the question is still the same; how do you pick out the bits to
believe and the bits not to believe? Is it that you believe all the
bits that cannot be verified or disproved and disbelieve the bits that
can be tested - and have failed?

No, see above. I don't refuse to believe any bits of the Bible. I do
ask how any particular point is to be believed and in what way it may
be considered as truth.

And on what basis do you get your answers?

Biblical Studies.
Historical Research.
Comparison with other disciplines.

Eg, those early chapters of Genesis:

Biblical Studies suggests that these are not scientific and historical
documents but similar in many respects to other near eastern creation
stories or myths.

Historical research finds little to support a historical approach to
the stories - eg no archaeology.

Other disciples - cosmology and geology have their own accounts which
O take seriously.

Spirituality reveals that the stories have powerful religious
significance and are important for fundamental theological themes.

Hence the conclusion is that Genesis contains mythological and
theological truth.

Thus, one addresses the Bible on different levels. All of them are
needed, but not always in the forefront of one's consciousness.
- You treat the Bible as any other ancient historical document or set
of documents, and seek to understand the cultures and contexts of the
different writers and times, and to see their ideas against that
background. In this other disciplines of ancient history, archaeology,
linguistics, anthropology etc are brought into play. The task is to try
to discover - and there are obviously limitations to this - what the
texts meant to their original author and cultures.

The authority of the Bible is not the kind of authority that secular
history books appeal to. And believing those books doesn't demand such
life-changing consequences that believing the Bible demands. And
history books stand or fall according to how they are consistent with
the objective evidence.

Well I'd say that's also partly true for the Bible. If it presented
things as history or science which other disciplines show to be false
then, if I haven't misunderstood the nature of what the Bible is
saying, it would have to be rejected.

It has to be correct in areas where it's pronouncements cover areas
that can be tested (history and science). If not, then how do you
accept it in areas you cannot test (the supernatural or the
afterlife)?

Agreed - and it usually is. Have you an example of a historical or
scientific truth in scripture which is false?

Personally I think they may exist but since the Bible is a human
document as well as divinely inspired I wouldn't find a problem with a
simple mistake, but see here:

As an example. If a body was dug up in Palestine that was
incontovertably the body of Jesus then it would that:

Jesus did not rise from the dead

or

Christians have misunderstood what the Bible appeared to claim about
the resurrection.

Some think it was a bodily resurrection and some thing it was a
spiritual one - and they all quote scripture to support their
position.

Well at the moment that divergence of views is entirely reasonable.
However, if we found the body of Jesus then the bodily
resurrectionists would hav to change their views and we'd all be
liberals or Muslims.

Either way Christianity, and our view of the Bible, would have to
change quite radically.

Some Christians would and others wouldn't.

So in theory the Bible is falsifiable by what you call 'objective
evidence' (if there is such a thing).

There is such a thing. We demand it for almost everything except our
religious beliefs

Well no, as I've pointed out, we imagine it is there for other
disciplines but philosophically it isn't.

(I've read on but hope what I have said so far will answer most
points)

Thank you.


--
andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Christianity leads me to Athesim?
    ... Her behaviour is certainly consistent ... reality, it has to be consistent with reality. ... truth too - they are easy to test. ... can be traced in history have indeed recounted historical events as ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Senior Death Warrants......
    ... And the Truth...well you can't handle the Truth. ... That is what reality and history were created for. ... no. History records what the winners had to say about what ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their
    ... of truth to them. ... The rest is religious garbage - not reality based history! ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The root of all evil? - Dawkins Documentary
    ... active and who intervenes in history is one which it should be ... but the claim that there exists a God who ... it actually can be established as a truth. ... science, observation and experiment must be objective. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Vatican Declares ToE Compatible With Christianity
    ... What is stated in the bible is not history. ... author of genesis was telling you, you would find that he was relating ... But then I don't read Genesis as a science text. ... neither of those are in any way reliable guides to truth. ...
    (talk.origins)